Home / News / Urgent Appeals / UPDATE (Sri Lanka): Gerald Perera's murder trial may not begin for another 5-7 years
 

UPDATE (Sri Lanka): Gerald Perera's murder trial may not begin for another 5-7 years

March 8, 2005

UPDATE ON URGENT APPEAL UPDATE ON URGENT APPEAL UPDATE ON URGENT APPEAL

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME
Update on Urgent Appeal

8 March 2005

[RE: UP-14-2005: The assassin of Gerald Perera has been arrested by the Criminal Investigation Department, UP-76-2004: Gerald Perera died after gunshot; His family needs urgent protection, UP-74-2004:  No action from the government to protect torture victim even after attempt on his life, UA-157-2004: Torture victim pursuing criminal torture case shot; UP-47-2002 (RE: UA/18 and 19/2002 - Torture by police, impunity and denial of proper rehabilitation; UP-44-2002 (RE: UA/18 and 19/2002 - Torture by police, impunity, denial of proper rehabilitation]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UP-23-2005: SRI LANKA: Gerald Perera's murder trial may not begin for another 5-7 years

SRI LANKA: Delay of justice; Rule of law
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) again calls for your strong support to the case of Gerald Perera, a torture victim who was murdered a few days before giving evidences in the court against his torture perpetrators.

According to the information we have received, Gerald Perera's murder trial may not begin for another 5-7 years, while the murder case of Judge Ambepitiya--who was killed two days before Gerald Perera was shot--is already fixed for trial at bar. Please send a letter to the Attorney General of Sri Lanka urging him to ensure a speedy trial in this case.

Urgent Appeals Desk
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
--------------------------------------------------------

UPDATED INFORMATION:

While the murder case of Judge Ambepitiya--who was killed two days before Gerald Perera was shot--is already fixed for trial at bar, it may take 5-7 years--or even more--before Gerald's case is even begun to be heard at the high court. Despite Gerald being a witness waiting to give evidence in a criminal case when the accused in the case allegedly murdered him, and despite the enormous social concern expressed at this case, it is being treated as a routine case of murder. What this means, is that a further year or more will be taken at the Magistrate's Court for the non-summary inquiry to be completed, then 2-3 years will be spent at the Attorney General's department before the indictment is filed, after which a further 2-4 years will be required for the case to be finally taken for trial. Add to that 2-5 more years for the hearing of appeals, and the alleged perpetrators have at least ten years to enjoy their liberty.

In a recent speech, Sri Lanka's Deputy Solicitor General stated that in 85 per cent of the cases, the accused escape liability because they are able to frighten witnesses into not turning up in court. Although the alleged perpetrators may not have this possibility in Judge Ambepitiya's case due to the short length of the trial itself, as well as the short time lapse between the murder and the trial, the perpetrators in Gerald Perera's case will have around seven years to harass the witnesses, if they so wish. In fact, the alleged motive for killing Gerald was to prevent him from giving evidence in court; the perpetrators have already taken action to eliminate witnesses. Furthermore, Gerald's widow has even stated in court her fear of repercussions if the alleged perpetrators are at liberty. All of them, except for the alleged assassin, are police officers who have held various positions in and around the area where the alleged torture and killing of Gerald took place. They thus have many connections in the area.

In general, such delays in the hearing of court cases trivialize the fight against murder and crime in general. The Criminal Investigation Division has shown tremendous capacity and dedication in carrying out successful investigations within a relatively short time in this case, as in the case of Judge Ambepitiya. However, these efforts are trivialized by the failure to proceed with the trial in an efficient manner.

Article 14 (3) (c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) obligates all state parties to ensure speedy trials in all criminal cases. The Sri Lankan government is a signatory to the ICCPR as well as to its Optional Protocol. A delay of 5-7 years in the hearing of a serious murder case is a clear violation of the ICCPR's provisions.

The spokespersons for the government and the judiciary often condemn the four percent conviction rate in the country, as well as the fact that 85 per cent of the witnesses fail the prosecution by fearing the perpetrators. However, the government and the agencies that deal with the prosecution, such as the Attorney General's department and the judiciary, themselves bear the responsibility for this situation, particularly in their failure to guarantee speedy trials. If delays in the hearing of cases can be manipulated to the benefit of the alleged perpetrators, more than rhetoric is needed to stop such abuse and obtain justice.

Gerald Perera's murder evoked local and international outrage. It also brought enormous pressure on the government to ensure a speedy investigation and apprehension of the alleged perpetrators. It is now necessary to generate similar pressure to ensure a speedy trial in the case. There is no reason not to follow the example of Judge Ambepitiya's prosecution--according to Sri Lankan law, an application to that effect must be made by the Attorney General to the Chief Justice to hold the case before a trial at bar. The decision whether Gerald Perera's hearing is delayed for many years or is heard speedily now lies in the hands of the Attorney General. The local and international community must intervene to persuade the Attorney General to ensure a speedy trial in this case.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please send a letter to the Attorney General of Sri Lanka urging him to take action to ensure a speedy trial in this case.

Sample letter:

--------

Dear Attorney General,

Re: SRI LANKA: Request for speedy trial in the murder case of the torture victim Gerald Perera

The murder of Gerald Perera is one of the most heinous crimes I have come across in my life.  While Mr. Perera was brutally tortured after being arrested on mistaken identity, he was allegedly murdered by very same perpetrators of the torture in order to prevent him from giving evidence in court.  This will certainly belong to the most heinous crimes in any society.

While I was glad to learn that the investigation into the murder had been carried out speedily and the alleged perpetrators apprehended, I am shocked and saddened to learn that the actual trial in this case may take five to seven years.  Meanwhile, a case of the murder of a judge which had taken place two days before the shooting of Mr. Perera has already been brought before a trial at bar.  I see no reason at all not to place the case of Gerald Perera under a similar procedure.  I understand that according to Sri Lankan law making a decision in this regard is in your hands. 

I fervently request you to urge the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka to bring this case under the same procedure as in the case of Judge Ambepitiya and ensure a speedy trial in this case.  Meanwhile, I am also of the opinion that the way to ensure the punishment for actual perpetrators in any crime is to ensure speedy trial.

Yours sincerely,


----------------

SEND A LETTER TO:

Mr. K. C. Kamalasabesan
Attorney General
Attorney General's Department
Colombo 12
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2 436 421


Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Update
Document ID :
UP-23-2005
Countries :
Issues :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.